Cash for clunkers scam

First, it's for the auto industry. We now own it--so we're just pouring more tax money into a product we, the company, are pushing.

Second, it's payback for the unions, so they can keep their workers and pensioners happy.

Third, there's no way that program is out of money. There haven't been that many deals made--crunch the numbers. This is marketing hype so more people will rush to the dealer.

Fourth, the people who got stopped by the paper work or a "standard" that said their 20 year old clunker was getting 20 mpg not 18, probably stopped and looked around the showroom at a new car.

Fifth, if their car didn't qualify, they'll be pushed into a new car with a loan, because this program is taking driveable older cars off the road.

Sixth, even if you want a used car, one with better mileage, you won't be able to find one, because they are being snapped up for the next deal.

Seventh, there's very little savings in either gasoline or the environment. People with older, second or beater cars, are not using them as much as their newer, more efficient cars. How many people do you know on a limited budget hop in the car for a road trip to Texas or Alaska?

Eighth, people with less efficient SUVs are buying newer, more efficient SUVs. They are still energy hogs.

Ninth, there's a cost to buying a new car, and a cost to destroying one that is already on the road, in the garage, driveable and useful.

Tenth, many dealers are out of inventory and making no sales at all until they get the next batch. So how's that working for the employees?

Clunker cars

Do you suppose this Bentley loves Obama gets 18 mpg? Could the owner qualify for a tax break from me who drives a 2002 Dodge Van that gets 26 mpg on the road, is a real workhorse, and doesn't hurt my back? (As near as I can tell from the model, this one gets about 10 in the city, 17 on the road).

Caught Between empty and a flat tire

A new 2009 or 2010 Dodge mini-van might have been in our future (assuming we could even find one on a lot), but not now, now that we know for certain that neither the government nor Chrysler will honor their agreements. There's nothing wrong with my 2002 van--but it won't be long before the government declares it is a "clunker." The new plan to get less fuel efficient vehicles off the road by offering a cash incentive of $4500 to purchase something with better mileage is of little value to people who can't afford or can't get the credit to purchase a newer, more expensive, smaller and more dangerous vehicle. Remember, not only have we bailed out Chrysler and GM, but we've destroyed the pension and investment account values because once the government can renege on those investors, it can do it to any. In other words, those of us in the lower income group will be hurt the most. That's why all these government plans whatever their good intentions for green spaces, for cholesterol, for cigarettes, for safe toys, for clean air, always hit the pocket books of the poor and fixed income seniors first, and then work their way up the pay scale.

Also, that's our tax money, that $4500 the government will reimuburse the automaker, which is really reimbursing the labor unions, the guys whose pensions Obama is trying to save because they so generously helped him buy the Presidency. We've already given the unions and automaker CEOs billions, but Obama's whiz kids are saying they still can't build a good car unless they get this ridiculous offer. An offer which most people with old cars can't afford, so there will be plenty of scammers running around buying up old cars from people who won't be able to replace them at any price. Next, they'll cap the pay of whatever executive was dumb enough to stay and not flee to another field, leaving the company with more Obama appointees. Besides, if Chrysler won't honor its agreements with the local dealers, some in business for generations, then why should it honor its agreement with me, the buyer, who buys bundled with that car the warranty on the various parts, the service agreements, and the supposed resale value, all of which is built into the cost of a new vehicle. No, I see no reason I should trust either Obama or Chrysler to give me a good deal.

Detroit has been pressured to build more fuel efficient and safer cars for 30 years; and for the most part, I think many of these regulations and laws have succeeded. Even so Americans burned 39% more gasoline in 2007 than they did in 1975, according to Energy Department figures, because more people hit the roads and drove more miles. My 2002 van (my third Chrysler mini-van) is an outstanding product and much better than my first one, a 1989. On the highway it gets around 27-28 mpg if there are no dead deer, semis or head winds to fight. In the city, not so great--maybe 19. But I'm sure the Obama car czar, who probably is too young to even drive and has never held a real job, will look at some sort of average for a 2002 mini-van made in the USA, and within a year or two, I'll be clunker driving. When I don't trade it (new it was about $19,000) with a voucher in hand for $4500 on a $50,000 model, I'll probably be cited for driving illegally, and told to take public transportation.

The cap and trade hoax, of which this "cash for clunkers" and automaker/union bailout at taxpayers expense are a part, is just the newest version of the 1970s DDT ban which killed or disabled millions and millions of black Africans, mostly children, so that European and American liberals could feel smug and self-righteous and continue to worship their pagan goddess, Mother Earth.